Mr. O. Onur Özgümüş is a senior associate at the competition law and regulatory department of ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law. He graduated from Koç University School of Law in 2008. He was admitted to the Istanbul Bar in 2009. Before joining ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law in 2014, Onur worked at reputable law firms based in Istanbul. He has extensive experience in areas of merger control, compliance to competition law rules, and defense work within the scope of investigations. He has represented various multinational and national companies before the Turkish Competition Authority. He is fluent in English.
17
(1) Introduction Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Competition Law”) has recently gone through the most comprehensive set of amendments since its initial adoption back in 1994. Law No. 7246 on Amendments to the Law on Protection of Competition (“Amendment Law”), which entered into (...)
9
This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Baymak decision, which concerned an administrative monetary fine of TL 26,813,704.10 against Baymak Makina San. ve Tic. A.Ş. (“Baymak”) for the violation of Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) through (...)
11
This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s CNNC Capital/Tongfang decision, regarding the acquisition of sole control over Tsinghua Tongfang Co. Ltd. (“Tongfang”) by China National Nuclear Corporation Capital Holdings Co. Ltd. (“CNNC Capital”). The Board assessed whether the parties, both (...)
843
The articles in this Special Issue aim to demonstrate how the Turkish Competition Board (the “Board”) paved the way for the harmonization of the Turkish competition law regime with European Union law over the span of the past decade on various fronts. In a similar vein, these articles also intend to shed light on the contemporary approach adopted by the Board in cases concerning anticompetitive practices, unilateral practices and mergers.
13
This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s PayU/iyzico decision, in which the Board analysed the parties’ market powers in the financial technology (“ FinTech ”) market by applying different market share calculation methods and established the general principles for the assessment of (...)
8
This case summary concerns an analysis of the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) Saudi Aramco/Sabic decision, in which the Board focused on whether the two state-owned undertakings belonged to the same economic unit, while also analysing whether competition in the relevant product markets takes (...)
6
This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Kerry Logistics/Asav HoldCo decision, where the Board, by taking into consideration the parties’ intention with regards to the acquisition of sole control, evaluated whether or not to tolerate an interim joint control period that would exceed (...)
8
This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Nidec/Embraco decision, regarding the acquisition of sole control over the compressor manufacturing business (“ Embraco ”) of Whirlpool Corporation (“ Whirlpool ”) by Nidec Corporation (“ Nidec ”). Within the scope of its preliminary review (Phase (...)
9
This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Jacobs decision, in which the Board evaluated the notification submitted by Jacobs TR, regarding the transaction by and between Jacobs Group, Kasap Family and Jacobs TR, a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs Group, which intended to acquire (...)
89
The Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) resolved that the transaction would not be deemed as a concentration requiring mandatory merger control filing before the Turkish Competition Authority (the “ Authority ”), given that the transaction would result in shifting alliances. To that end, the (...)
11
This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Thales/Gemalto decision regarding the acquisition of sole control over Gemalto N.V. (“Gemalto”) by Thales S.A. (“Thales”). The Board indicated that the aggregate market share of the parties would be relatively high in the enterprise key (...)
72
The Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) granted conditional approval to the acquisition of sole control over Monsanto Company (“ Monsanto ”) by Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (“ Bayer ”), by way of taking into account the commitments submitted before the European Commission (“ Commission ”). This case (...)
67
By way of taking into account another transaction realized by the same acquirer within the same relevant product market previously, the Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) resolved that the contemplated transaction is subject to a mandatory merger control filing, although it does not satisfy (...)
77
The Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) unconditionally approved the acquisition of sole control over Rockwell Collins, Inc. (“ Rockwell ”) by United Technologies Corporation (“ UTC ”) which will be realized by way of a reverse-triangular merger. This case summary concerns an analysis of the (...)
10
This case summary concerns an analysis of the Board’s Valeo/FTE Group decision, pertaining to the acquisition of sole control over FTE Group Holding GmbH (“FTE Group”) by Valeo Holding GmbH (“Valeo Germany”). The Board resolved that the transaction would result in a horizontally affected market in (...)
69
“The Turkish Competition Board (“ Board ”) unconditionally approved the transaction concerning the acquisition of joint control over Cerba Healthcare (“ Cerba ”) by Public Sector Pension Investment Board (“ PSPIB ”) and Partners Group AG (“ Partners Group ”). To that end, the Board resolved that a (...)
Price
290€00
2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases
The Digest comprises 41 essays and is structured in two parts: Part I deals with competition rules in general (procedural rules, unilateral practices, mergers...), whereas Part II is dedicated to (...)
19 avenue Jean Aicard
75011 Paris, France
106 West 32nd Street, Suite 144
New York, NY, 10001, USA
61-63 Rochester Place
NW1 9JU London, UK
